Abstract

Footnotes (102)

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id2255673. ; Size: 193K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

When directors are in breach of their duties, it seems natural to give shareholders a claim for compensation. However, directors’ duties are owed to the company, not shareholders individually. This raises the question of whether individual shareholders can sue for compensation on behalf of the company. In some legal systems such derivative actions have been in place for a long time, but, recently, many other legal systems have also introduced or facilitated them. Still, there is considerable diversity around the world. In this paper I explore how the availability of derivative actions is related to other differences between countries, for instance, the common law/civil law divide, the ownership structure of firms, and other questions of shareholder protection and civil procedure. The main result is that today the common law/civil divide does not account for the differences and similarities in the law of derivative actions across countries. However, a quantitative analysis of 25 legal systems still confirmed a legal family effect in 1995 which could also be linked to differences in the ownership structure of firms. Other explanatory hypotheses could not be confirmed: cultural characteristics have not stopped countries such as Japan or China from incorporating rules on derivative actions into their company laws. It was also not found that legal systems use derivative actions as an ex-post substitute for other forms of shareholder protection; rather, different forms of shareholder protection can be regarded as complements.